Evidence: First… 1. Assemble your district team to include teachers, administrators, association representatives 2. Research and select an instructional framework. 3. Professional development to understand framework & the alignment to each state criteria 4. Development of evaluation process, tools, forms (followed by process training)

NTPS Evidence Menu District TPEP Team: Work Sessions Goals: – Menu of Possibilities: Not a checklist, Not a Prescription, Enough to stimulate planning – Format: Organize by state criteria with assigned framework components. – Use framework proficiency levels to determine quality of evidence

NTPS Evidence Menu Sample State Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement Operational Definition-EXPECTATIONS: The teacher communicates high expectations for student learning Component 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning Component 3a: Communicating with Students Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning Evidence may include but is not limited to:  Classroom Observation (part of evaluation cycle) 2b, 3a, 3c  Lesson Plans 2b, 3c  Unit Plans 2b, 3c  Student Work Samples 2b, 3a, 3c  Student Recognition and Rewards 2b, 3a, 3c  Student / Parent Feedback 2b, 3a

NTPS Crosswalk Document (Evidence informs analysis) State Criterion #1: Centering Instruction on High Expectations… ComponentUnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished 3a Communicating with Students Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are unclear or confusing to students. The teacher’s use of language contains errors or is inappropriate for students’ cultures or levels of development. Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clarified after initial confusion; the teacher’s use of language is correct but may not be completely appropriate for students’ cultures or levels of development. Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Communications are appropriate for students’ cultures and levels of development. Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. The teacher’s oral and written communication is clear and expressive, appropriate for students’ cultures and levels of development, and anticipates possible student misconceptions.

NTPS Evidence Menu Sample State Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning Operational Definition-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: The teacher participates collaboratively in the educational community to improve instruction, advance the knowledge and practice of teaching as a profession, and ultimately impact student learning Component 4d: Participating in a Professional Community Component 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally Component 4f: Showing Professionalism Evidence may include but is not limited to:  Self Assessment of Practice (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f  Collaborative Goal Setting (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f  Reflection Conference (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f  Non-classroom Observation 4d, 4f  Reflective Journal 4d, 4e, 4f  School / District Committee Artifacts 4d, 4e, 4f  School / District Leadership 4d, 4e, 4f  Clock Hours / Credits / Transcripts 4e  Peer Feedback 4d, 4e, 4f  Professional Awards and Recognition 4d, 4e, 4f

NTPS Crosswalk Document (Evidence informs analysis) State Criterion #8: Exhibiting Collaborative and Collegial Practices… ComponentUnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished 4d Participating in a Professional Community The teacher avoids participating in a professional community or in school and district events and projects; relationships with colleagues are negative or self- serving. The teacher becomes involved in the professional community and in school and district events and projects when specifically asked; relationships with colleagues are cordial. The teacher participates actively in the professional community and in school and district events and projects, and maintains positive and productive relationships with colleagues. The teacher makes a substantial contribution to the professional community and to school and district events and projects, and assumes a leadership role among the faculty.

NTPS Evaluation Cycle

Teacher Self-Assessment Review Instructional Framework (Enhancing Professional Practice: a Framework for Teaching) Review prior year evaluation feedback (Preparation for first planning conference with evaluator)

First Observation Cycle Planning Conference Formal Classroom Observation Reflection Conference Includes Goal Setting Discussion

Second Observation Cycle Planning Conference Formal Classroom Observation Reflection Conference Preparation for Pre-Summative Conference: Evidence Discussion

Second Observation Cycle Planning Conference Formal Classroom Observation Reflection Conference

Summative Scoring Process Teacher Self Assessment & Reflection Pre-Summative Conference Preparation Pre-Summative Conference Final Summative Conference (optional)

Sample Observation Cycle Evidence See separate packet. Thank you: – Monica Sweet, Aspire Middle School Principal

NTPS Summative Evaluation Standards Must score each of the eight (8) state criteria Must have evidence in at least two components for each criteria (Exception: Criteria #7 = Only one component - 4c) For any criteria rated “1” (unsatisfactory) or “2” (basic), evaluator must provide evidence-based narrative explanation on summary evaluation form. Final holistic summative score determined by evaluator using scores for eight criteria and summative rubric. No Surprises - Process designed to reveal all strengths and growth areas prior to final summative evaluation.

Sample Plan – Per Teacher March through April Staff Meeting – 1 hour (All) Reflection Conference + Menu: 1 Hour Prep for Pre-Summative: Min. Goals Rev./Pre-Summative Conf.: 1 hour Prep final evaluation document: 45 Min. Summative Conf.: (Optional) 30 Min. Total: 4-5 hrs per teacher + staff mtg.

Pre-Summative Conference Before The Conference … Teacher & Evaluator: – Considers component evidence which may be used to inform the summative evaluation. – Reflects on strengths and areas for further growth – Uses framework, crosswalk document, and summative evaluation form to score each of the eight criteria along with a single summative score. – “More” evidence is not necessarily “better”. Refer to framework in deciding what to bring to the conference.

Pre-Summative Conference Conference Agenda: – Compare/discuss preliminary criteria scores and summative score prepared by teacher and evaluator along with related evidence – For any differences in preliminary scores, component evidence is reviewed to seek mutual agreement. (If no agreement can be reached, teacher may submit new evidence for evaluator consideration.) – Identify any new evidence necessary to complete evaluation and determine who will gather/provide this. – Review Summative Evaluation Document Plan & Optional Final Conference

Criteria 2 Criteria 1 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory

Summative Rating Process Overview Summative Rating is determined through a “Raw Score” Model Determination of overall criterion score based on both: – Instructional framework rubrics – Student growth rubrics

The RAW Score Model Teaching Criteria * Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics Overall Criterion Scores Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement3 Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices4 *Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs3 Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum2 Criterion 5: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment3 *Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning2 Criterion 7: Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community3 *Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning 2 Total Summative Score 22 Evaluators place teachers into preliminary summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this teacher would receive a preliminary overall summative rating of Proficient Unsatisfactory 2 Basic 3 Proficient 4 Distinguished

Criteria 2 Criteria 1 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Student Growth Measures (From 3 specific criteria) Student Growth Measures (From 3 specific criteria) State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Student Growth Impact Ratings: Low, Average, High Student Growth Impact Ratings: Low, Average, High District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory

ESSB 5895 Establishes New Definitions Around Student Growth Measures Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 contain language around student growth including: Student growth data that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter must be a factor in the evaluation process and must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools. Student growth means the change in student achievement between two points in time. Changes… Student growth data must be a substantial factor in evaluating the summative performance of certificated classroom teachers for at least three of the evaluation criteria. Student growth data elements may include the teacher’s performance as a member of a grade-level, subject matter, or other instructional team within a school when the use of this data is relevant and appropriate.

Defining Key Terms Student Achievement: The status of subject- matter knowledge, understandings, and skills at one point in time. Student Growth (Learning): The growth in subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skill over time.

Student Growth Rubrics The TPEP steering committee organizations approved statewide rubrics for student growth to ensure consistency in implementation of the evaluation system across Washington State. The rubrics for student growth describe both goal-setting and outputs of student learning. OSPI has provided student growth rubrics for each of the three criterion – Teachers #3, #6, and #8 – Principals #3, #5, and #8

Student Growth Rubric and Rating (Teachers Only) Student GrowthGoal-Setting Score Based on Rubric Student Growth* Score Based on Rubric Overall Student Growth Criterion Score Criterion 332**5 Criterion 622**4 Criterion 82 N/A 2 Student Growth Score7411 *Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (i.e., state-, district-, school-, and classroom-based measures). ** A student growth score of “1” in any of the student growth rubrics will result in a Low growth rating. Evaluators place teachers into summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated below, this teacher would receive a low student growth rating LowAverageHigh

Criteria 2 Criteria 1 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Student Growth Measures (From 3 specific criteria) Student Growth Measures (From 3 specific criteria) State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Student Growth Impact Ratings: Low, Average, High Student Growth Impact Ratings: Low, Average, High District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix

NTPS Game Plan for Student Growth Gather representative team Identify teaching assignment categories at elementary and secondary List appropriate student growth measures for each assignment Obtain or develop student growth measures as needed for specialized assignments Develop training tools, sample goals, and other resources for teachers and principals Development This Year; Implement FALL 2013.

NTPS Lessons Learned Quality, NOT Quantity Collect, discuss, and record all year Maximize conference discussions for teacher and principal Create evidence plan WITH each teacher – Should NOT be prescribed without teacher input.

QUESTIONS?